Who Uses Official Electronic Charts?

[MainlySteam]

I would be interested in knowing how many use official electronic charts, either raster or vector from national hydrographic authorities. That is the charts that come from UKHO, Maptech (USA) or if in this part of the world Seafarer (Australia) or Mariner (NZ), for example.

I am also interested in what people think will happen to the non official charts (C-Map, Navionics, etc) as the portfolio of official vector charts is completed. Will they just remain as the medium carrying the company's own production of the charts or will they remain as the medium but carrying the official charts under licence or will they disappear altogether in the future (in the same manner as we do not have non official suppliers of paper charts filling anything other than specialist niches - we generally all buy official paper charts)?

If you use official electronic charts I would be interested in what software you use.

To get the ball rolling, in my own case I use official electronic charts and the software I use is Endeavour Navigator (an application aimed mainly at small commercial vessels).

Thanks in anticipation.

John

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Birdseye]

I dont see why you are differentiating. As far as I know, and certainly in the UK, the feed of data to the non HO chart sellers comes from the HO, and with the exception of buoys/lights etc and soundings near commercial harbours, is mainly fairly old. So there is no reason to think that the data from non HOs is any less reliable.

Personally, I suspect that for raggies it will go against the HOs. The issue for most raggies is battery life on laptops, which means that dedicated plotters are the most practical approach. This is turn means that the plotter maker can make a steady income by selling charts, so he will ensure that his plotter can only use his charts. But then , if the UKHO is anything to go by, leisure charting is a very minor part of their revenue stream, and they are still very much anti Vector.

For stinkies, I think it will go against the HO for different reasons. The HO here is a govt organisation with all that implies in speed of innovation, customer sensitivity etc. So if you want the latest bells and whistles (which my prejudiced raggie mind reckons is what obsesses stinkies) then you dont get it from Bliar and co.



<hr width=100% size=1>this post is a personal opinion, and you should not base your actions on it.

 

[MainlySteam]

Hi Birdseye

I have been away and in catching up have now seen that the same source data point has been made on another current thread. While that is so that is not the thrust of my interest which prompted my post.

However, just to comment the source data may be the same but that does not mean that it is implemented the same or even correctly. I am aware of non official electronic charts which seem to have positional discrepancies not evident on current official paper charts and I think such has also been reported by others on these forums - that would infer to me that something has gone astray in the second party's implementation of the hydrographic database data. One commercial user (not here in NZ) has advised me of a positional discrepancy of all features on an unofficial electronic chart that develops from zero to 180 m in less than 20 miles and which does not appear on the paper charts.

I emphasize that my questions were not oriented at doubts over accuracy but purely from a usage point of view. If anyone has points on the accuracy I would be very interested but ask that maybe it could be done in another thread or when this one has run its course (which it may have already done /forums/images/icons/smile.gif).

Regards

John

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ponapay]

I have used ARCS

charts from the UKHO for over 6years and have had almost no problems. They are updated frequently and replaced when a new version comes along. The Skipper service with 4 updates per annum on the dates you select is ideal for yotties that tend not to use guaranteed up to date charts. I reckon mine are as up to datye as they can be whenever I am sailing.

My only quibble is that some times UKHO stops producing one chart for which a licence is held and then at a later date replaces it with another numbered chart (for which a new licence may be required).

I have tried vector charts and won't bother again. UKHO is best.

I use SEAPRO 2000 from Euronav and again find it excellent for my purposes. It is on a PC with a repeater screen on the bridge.

The boat is a motor sailer with a wheelhouse.


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[MainlySteam]

Re: I have used ARCS

Many thanks for the feedback - looks like only a couple of us use "proper" charts.

We here are in the fortunate position of having all the official electronic charts for NZ and some of the Pacific Islands being essentially free to all (the cost of distribution only is charged which means one gets them all - about 150 of them from memory - for about the equivalent of GBP20) so no excuse for not having up to date electronic charts.

John

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[markdj]

Re: I have used ARCS

Just found this thread and want to add my own 2pence.

We use UKHO raster charts on a laptop. They are raster ARCS charts and we have quite a number of folios covering scotland, ireland, wales, cornwall, channel islands and bay of biscay.

We use Meridian Seatrak software. Their website is at <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.rcds.co.uk>http://www.rcds.co.uk</A>
These guys are the same people who designed the software for the RYA plotter but their software is had more features and autopilot control. I looked at many chart software before deciding on Seatrak for it's speed and ease of use.

Good cruising


MarkdJ

<hr width=100% size=1>Princess Owners Club
<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.princessownersclub.com>http://www.princessownersclub.com</A>

 

[MainlySteam]

Re: I have used ARCS

Thanks for the feedback Mark

I find the seeming lack of users of official charts interesting because as far as I know, none of the non-official electronic charts are actually "approved for navigation" and usually come with that warning from the supplier.

John

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Guest]

Standards and approved

BUT in fact there are no 100% approved electronic charts as ALL carry the warning somewhere about use alongside paper charts ....

OK - someone will quote the new ECS etc. where ECS Charts are taking place on shipping etc. - It is STILL early days and they DO NOT substitute paper versions and traditional charting methods.

For yotties - ok carry a few paper charts of general areas to make sure you are OK if electrical failure / keeop a check .... and use ECS prudently as source to navigate for convenience .....


<hr width=100% size=1>Nigel ... and of course Yahoo groups :
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gps-navigator/

 

[MainlySteam]

Re: Standards and approved

That is a common misconception but the international requirement is that electronic charts are ok (the system is supposed to be ECDIS, however official raster charts are acceptable even though not included in the ECDIS specification) as long as there is a backup and that backup may be another electronic system - it has been so since IMO SOLAS V in 2002. SOLAS V is written in terms of all the charts carried, including the backup, being electronic but "allowing" the back up to be paper if desired. As for anything at all, whether to do with navigation or not, the flag administration the vessel sails under may have its own requirements but in the case of the UK, SOLAS V was brought into effect by The Merchant Shipping (Safety of Navigation) Regulations 2002.

To the best of my knowledge the official electronic charts produced by UKHO, USA (Maptech), Germany, Australia (Seafearer), NZ (Mariner), etc, etc, are all accepted for navigation. My understanding is that none of the non-official ones whatsoever are accepted for navigation and most, if not all, carry the warning that they are "not to be used for navigation" or similar wording including "without reference to official charts" (which reference, in fact, may be to an official electronic set) due to that non-acceptance. Those warnings are not due to the unreliability of electronic charting but due to the assumed unreliability of the charts.

John

<hr width=100% size=1>